Mohammad Rafiq. J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Mahesh Chandra Singhania challenging condition No.6 of his appointment order dated 20/8/1981 and the order dated 22/7/1991 by which respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Condition No.6 and Clause 32 of the Service Rules of the Company, terminated his services without making payment of notice pay of three months and relieved him from service on 22/7/1991.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Retainer Sales Executive with the respondent Gujarat Fertilizers Company vide order dated 20/8/1981 and was posted at Jaipur vide order dated 11/9/1981. He joined services of the respondents on 19/9/1981. Appointment of the petitioner was made after due selection on his application in response to advertisement issued by the respondents and after subjecting him to interview. Initially, his appointment was made on probation but on successful completion of period of probation, he was confirmed on 1/8/1992. He was promoted on the post of Marketing Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4025 vide order dated 29/12/1984 in which post also he was confirmed vide order dated 31/12/1985. The post of Marketing Manager was subsequently re-designated as Senior Marketing Manager vide order dated 3/3/1987 in revised pay scale of Rs. 2700-4900 w.e.f. 7/10/1986. According to petitioner, he was promoted on the post of Chief Marketing Manager on 16/10/1990 w.e.f. 15/10/1990. Order of termination passed by the respondents by invoking Condition No.6 of the appointment order and Rule 32 of the Service Rules, according to the petitioner, is a punitive order for the reason that he applied for leave of one month from 15/1/1991 to 16/2/1991 vide his application dated 8/1/1991 to avail leave travel concession and visit his elder brother's family who expired in Sept., 1990. However, the management desired that he should postpone his visit and therefore cancelled the leave. Petitioner again applied from 25/2/1991 to 31/3/1991. Same was sanctioned by the competent authority on 9/2/1991 and then petitioner requested for sanction of ordinary leave upto 30/4/1991 which was also sanctioned. During that period, according to the petitioner, he became ill and therefore, he sent telex message on 30/4/1991 to the General Manager and Executive Director of Marketing of the respondents requesting for sanction of leave on the ground of sickness from 1/5/1991 to 30/6/1991 which too was sanctioned. The company however served upon the petitioner a registered letter dated 13/6/1991 asking for medical certificate for further extension. Petitioner submitted medical certificate along with letter dated 27/6/1991. The management however vide letter dated 13/7/1991 conveyed to the petitioner that medical certificate issued by the Vaidhya was not acceptable. Soon thereafter respondents by invoking aforesaid condition No.6 of the appointment order and Rule 32 of the Rules of service dispensed with services of the petitioner.
(3.) Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has at the outset raised two preliminary objections; (i) that High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter in dispute and (ii) that the respondent Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. is not a State or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the writ petition is not maintainable and is therefore liable to be dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel argued that at the time of termination of his service, petitioner was posted at Bharuch. Head office of the company is situated at Bharuch in the State of Gujarat. Termination order was issued at Bharuch and it became immediately effective on 22/7/1991 at Bharuch itself. Termination order was dispatched to the petitioner at his Jaipur address from Bharuch. No part of cause of action has arisen at Jaipur or elsewhere in the State of Rajasthan. It was argued that petitioner stood relieved of his duties and relationship of master and servant got snapped the moment termination order was issued. Registrar of the Company is situated in the State of Gujarat. Appointment order was also issued to the petitioner on 20/8/1981 from Bharuch and sent to him at Anand also in the State of Gujarat. He was transferred to the head office of Bharuch vide order dated 23/5/1990 where he joined on 25/7/1990. It was for the reason of his absence from 1/5/1991 to 30/6/1991, that his services were terminated vide order dated 22/7/1991. Learned counsel in support of his argument, placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in CBI, Anti-Corruption v. Narayan : 1994(4) SCC 656, Alchemist Limited v. State : AIR 2007 SC 1812, Mosaraf Hossain v. Bhagheratha & Ors. : 2006(3) SCC 658, S tate of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties : AIR 1985 SC 1289, Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering : (1994) 4 SCC 710 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal : (1994) 4 SCC 711.;